Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Searching for Accreting Compact Object Binaries in SRG/eROSITA eRASS1

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper reports 22 accreting compact-object binary candidates in the eROSITA eRASS1 catalog, selected by X-ray-to-optical flux ratio and short-period optical variability, and argues the recipe scales to future all-sky surveys.

desk verdict The selection pipeline works, but the paper's own SIMBAD matches show that at least 8 of the 22 'accreting compact object binary candidates' are RR Lyrae or eclipsing binaries, so the central claim is overstated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10478 v2 pith:D733UCAY submitted 2025-05-15 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR

Hao-Bin Liu , Wei-Min Gu , Yongqi Lu , Teng Liu , Jin-Zhong Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords CataclysmicvariablestarsCompactobjectsLightcurvesPhotometryX-raybinaryX-ray-to-opticalfluxratioeRASS1quiescentbinaries
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a purely photometric recipe can pull accreting compact-object binaries out of a large X-ray catalog: require exactly one Gaia optical counterpart within 10 arcseconds, require the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio to lie above the empirical “X-ray Main Sequence” boundary that separates accretion from stellar activity, and require short-period variability in ZTF time-domain photometry. Applied to eRASS1, the recipe yields 22 candidates from 127,083 Gaia-matched sources, including two previously confirmed accreting systems, J0419 and J1023, and several spectroscopically classified cataclysmic variables. If the recipe works at scale, it offers a path toward a more complete census of quiescent X-ray binaries and cataclysmic variables in the Galaxy without waiting for outbursts and without relying on parallax or proper-motion cuts. The selection is deliberately independent of astrometric parameters, so the approach is meant to transfer to other optical surveys and future data releases.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing selection tool is the empirical “X-ray Main Sequence” boundary, $\\log(F_X/F_{\\rm opt}) > (G_{\\rm BP}-G_{\\rm RP}) - 3.5$, calibrated by Rodriguez (2024) on XMM-Newton 0.2–12 keV data and transferred here to eROSITA 0.2–2.3 keV fluxes by assuming a power-law photon index of 2, which raises the effective boundary by a factor of 1.8. On top of this sits a Lomb-Scargle period search over ZTF g- and i-band light curves in a 0.1–4 day window, which supplies the short-period variability that separates promising systems from the 57,940 sources that pass the flux-ratio cut alone.

What would settle it

Obtain optical spectra for all 22 candidates: if a substantial fraction show chromospheric or coronal activity lines with no accretion-disk or ellipsoidal-modulation signatures, or if spectroscopically confirmed CVs and LMXBs in eRASS1 fall below the adapted boundary, then the flux-ratio criterion has not transferred to eROSITA and the sample is contaminated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the combination of an X-ray-excess criterion and short-period optical variability identifies accreting compact-object binaries in eRASS1: 22 of 127,083 Gaia-matched sources survive the three-step selection, and these include J0419, a pre-white-dwarf plus compact-object binary, and J1023, a transitional millisecond pulsar in an accreting state. Archival spectra for five candidates show Balmer and He I/He II emission lines consistent with accretion, and four candidates appear in an independent CV catalog. The paper argues that the recovery of these known systems, plus the trend between X-ray hardness and orbital period in the sample, indicates the selection isolates accretion-powered binaries rather than active stars or extragalactic contaminants.

Load-bearing premise

The selection hinges on the assumption that an empirical activity-versus-accretion brightness boundary calibrated with one X-ray satellite's energy bands still holds for another satellite after a simple correction; if it does not, the candidate list mixes in active stars or misses true accreting binaries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 22 candidates form a concrete follow-up list; two are already confirmed accreting binaries and five have archival spectra consistent with accretion.
  • If the recipe is correct, large all-sky X-ray catalogs can be mined for quiescent X-ray binaries and CVs without astrometric cuts, extending the search beyond Gaia's parallax reach.
  • The observed hardness-ratio versus orbital-period trend suggests X-ray hardness may help separate white-dwarf accretors from neutron-star and black-hole accretors in future samples.
  • Because the method needs only broad-band optical photometry and time-domain data, it is directly applicable to future surveys such as LSST and to later eROSITA data releases.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 1.8-times band correction is the fragile step: if eRASS1 sources have harder photon indices than assumed, the effective boundary would admit additional active stars, and the paper's decision to retain sources near the line acknowledges this sensitivity.
  • Some candidates are classified by SIMBAD as BY Draconis variables, RR Lyrae stars, or eclipsing binaries; if those classifications hold, the variability step alone cannot always distinguish tidal ellipsoidal modulation from stellar rotation, so the sample is not necessarily purely accreting compact-object binaries.
  • The requirement of exactly one Gaia counterpart within 10 arcseconds and G<19 biases the sample toward nearby, optically bright systems; a complete census would need probabilistic counterpart matching and fainter optical limits.
  • The same flux-ratio-plus-variability combination could be tested against the full eROSITA all-sky catalog once the eastern Galactic hemisphere is publicly available, providing a direct measure of completeness and contamination.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a three-step selection of accreting compact object binary candidates from the SRG/eROSITA eRASS1 catalog: (1) cross-matching each X-ray source to a unique Gaia DR3 optical counterpart within 10 arcseconds; (2) requiring an X-ray-to-optical flux ratio above the empirical Rodriguez (2024) 'X-ray Main Sequence' boundary; and (3) requiring short-period variability in ZTF light curves identified by a Lomb-Scargle search and visual inspection. The procedure yields 22 candidates, including the previously known J0419 and J1023, with five systems having archival LAMOST or SDSS spectra. The paper argues that the method is effective, scalable, and adaptable to future surveys such as LSST.

Significance. If the candidate list were clean, this would be a useful contribution: it provides a small, well-defined sample for spectroscopic follow-up and demonstrates a transparent multi-wavelength selection recipe using public catalogs. The paper's strengths include the fully reproducible use of eRASS1, Gaia DR3, and ZTF DR22 data, the explicit three-step selection logic, the deliberate avoidance of astrometric cuts (so the method can reach beyond Gaia's astrometric limit), and the recovery of the known accreting systems J0419 and J1023. However, the central claim that all 22 objects are 'accreting compact object binary candidates' is weakened by the paper's own SIMBAD cross-match: eight objects carry classifications (RR Lyrae, eclipsing binaries) that are not established as accretion-powered, and the false-positive rate of the selection is not quantified. The value of the paper as a candidate list for follow-up is real, but the interpretation and the purity claims need substantial revision before the results can be taken as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 and Table 1] The paper's characterization of the final sample as '22 accreting compact object binary candidates' is not supported by its own SIMBAD cross-match. Two objects (J051723-115359 and J052316-252737) are classified as RR Lyrae stars and six objects (J064513+195511, J073223-072292, J073644+131707, J080038-275245, J093757-171012, J094146+060933) are classified as eclipsing binaries. These classes are short-period variables but are not, without further evidence, accreting compact object binaries. The assertion in Section 4 that the X-ray-to-optical flux cut 'significantly reduces the likelihood of contamination by eclipsing binaries or pulsating variables' is not quantified, and these eight objects demonstrably survive that cut. The authors should either remove or explicitly flag these sources as contaminants or unclassified variables, quantify the contamination rate of the selection, and revise the abstract and title-level claim accordingly.
  2. [Table 1] J073523+123009 has a negative parallax (Plx = -0.01 mas, RPlx = -0.06), yet its X-ray luminosity is reported as 1.46e35 erg/s, which is unphysical because it is derived from a negative distance indicator. Luminosities should not be computed from non-positive parallaxes; this entry should be reported as an upper limit or a dash. In addition, the photometric periods Tph are listed to three decimal places without any uncertainties, even though they come from a Lomb-Scargle search with a finite baseline and sampling window. Period uncertainties are needed to assess the period distributions presented in Figures 4 and 5 and to prioritize follow-up.
  3. [Section 2.2] The transfer of the Rodriguez (2024) activity boundary from XMM-Newton 0.2-12 keV data to the eROSITA ML_FLUX_1 0.2-2.3 keV band rests on an assumed power-law photon index of 2 and a single multiplicative factor of 1.8. The paper notes that this correction 'potentially excludes one additional source,' but it does not test the sensitivity of the final candidate list to the assumed photon index (e.g., 1-3) or to the intrinsic scatter of the boundary itself. Since this flux-ratio criterion is the main astrophysical discriminator of Step 2, a sensitivity analysis is necessary to show that the sample membership is robust rather than an artifact of the band correction.
  4. [Section 2.3] The Lomb-Scargle step that reduces 57,940 sources to 324 is described as retaining sources with 'significant periodic modulation,' but no significance threshold or false-alarm probability is specified, and the final reduction from 324 to 22 is performed by visual inspection. The absence of a quantitative criterion (e.g., a false-alarm-probability cutoff or a minimum S/N in the periodogram) makes the variability selection difficult to reproduce and leaves the false-positive rate of this step unquantified. Please state the threshold used, the number of sources rejected at each substep, and the period uncertainty estimation method.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2.2] The term 'X-ray Main Sequence' is nonstandard and could be confused with the stellar main sequence; consider using a more descriptive term such as 'X-ray activity boundary' or 'Rodriguez boundary.'
  2. [Section 2.2] The optical flux definition Fopt = 10^{-0.4(G-4.83)} L_sun / (4 pi (10 pc)^2) should be clarified as a Vega- or magnitude-zero-point-based conversion, and the absence of reddening corrections for G, GBP, and GRP should be stated explicitly as a limitation.
  3. [Section 2.1] The notation 'phot g mean mag<19' should be written as 'G < 19 mag' in standard formatting to avoid confusion with a specific photometric band.
  4. [Figure 1 and Section 3.2] The candidate is referred to as J093757-171012 in the text and table, but the X-ray label in Figure 1(a) reads '1eRASS J093757.4-171014'; please reconcile the coordinate naming.
  5. [Section 4] There are several typographical errors: 'dominately' should be 'dominantly', 'whtie' should be 'white', and 'other other wide-field photometric surveys' contains a duplicated word.
  6. [Section 3.2] The SIMBAD/ZTF classification of J0419 and J152611-102512 as BY Draconis variables is surprising given that J0419 is described in Section 3.1 as a confirmed compact object binary; this apparent inconsistency should be discussed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the selection applies an external empirical boundary and independent time-domain variability, and the validation does not reduce to the selection inputs.

full rationale

The three-step selection is an application of an externally calibrated empirical boundary (Rodriguez 2024) to eRASS1 data; the boundary is not fitted or derived in this paper, so the flux-ratio criterion is not circular. The ZTF Lomb-Scargle variability step is independent of the X-ray flux-ratio input, and the final 22 candidates are simply the output of the stated filters rather than quantities predicted from those filters by construction. Validation of five sources uses LAMOST/SDSS spectra and SIMBAD/Gaia classifications that are external to the selection procedure. The paper explicitly flags its own limitations: the bandpass correction assumes a power-law index of 2 and 'potentially excludes one additional source' (Section 4), and 'The limited photon counts hinder robust spectral analysis' (Section 3.3). A minor self-citation exists (J0419 dynamical confirmation from Zhang et al. 2022, which includes current corresponding author Wei-Min Gu), but it is not load-bearing: J0419 also appears in the independent Rodriguez et al. (2025) CV catalog, and the selection does not depend on that prior work. The presence of RR Lyrae and eclipsing-binary SIMBAD classes among the candidates is a sample-purity or correctness concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities. Its central selections rest on six hand-picked thresholds and on the calibrated X-ray main sequence from Rodriguez (2024), plus several domain assumptions about counterpart matching and the origin of short-period variability. The main ad hoc element is the assumed photon index of 2 used to rescale the boundary between X-ray bands.

free parameters (6)
  • X-ray main sequence boundary (slope, intercept) = slope=1, intercept=-3.5 (log FX/Fopt > GBP-GRP - 3.5)
    Adopted from Rodriguez (2024) and used as the primary accretion/activity separator in Section 2.2; not fitted in this paper.
  • Gaia matching radius = 10 arcsec
    Chosen in Section 2.1 based on eROSITA positional accuracy; requires exactly one Gaia source within the circle.
  • Gaia magnitude limit = G < 19 mag
    Set in Section 2.1 to match the estimated typical QXB counterpart brightness at about 4 kpc.
  • ZTF search period range = 0.1-4 days
    Set in Section 2.3 to focus on X-ray binaries; excludes shorter and longer periods by design.
  • ZTF matching radius = 5 arcsec
    Used for querying ZTF photometry in Section 2.3.
  • Assumed X-ray power-law index for band correction = Gamma = 2
    Assumed in Section 2.2 to rescale the Rodriguez boundary from XMM-Newton 0.2-12 keV to eROSITA 0.2-2.3 keV; stated to make the cut 1.8 times higher.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Rodriguez (2024) X-ray main sequence boundary separates accretion-powered sources from magnetically active stars in eRASS1.
    Invoked in Section 2.2; if the calibration does not transfer to eROSITA soft-band fluxes, the sample is contaminated or incomplete.
  • domain assumption A unique Gaia source within 10 arcsec is the correct optical counterpart for each eRASS1 source.
    Used in Section 2.1; the paper acknowledges this excludes many sources and may misidentify in crowded regions.
  • domain assumption A significant Lomb-Scargle peak in the 0.1-4 day window indicates orbital modulation of a compact object binary.
    Used in Section 2.3; the paper relies on the prior flux-ratio cut to suppress eclipsing binaries, RR Lyrae, and BY Dra contaminants, which are still present in SIMBAD classifications.
  • domain assumption Visual inspection of 324 phased light curves reliably identifies real periodicities and removes aliases.
    Used in Section 2.3; no objective criteria or artifact list are provided.
  • domain assumption eROSITA ML_FLUX_1 in the 0.2-2.3 keV band is directly comparable to Gaia optical fluxes for computing FX/Fopt.
    Used in Section 2.2; band and aperture differences affect the ratio.
  • ad hoc to paper The X-ray spectrum is a power law with photon index 2 for the purpose of band corrections.
    Assumed in Section 2.2; used only to rescale the Rodriguez boundary, not tested against the candidates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Accreting Compact Object Binaries in SRG/eROSITA eRASS1." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D733UCAY

@misc{pith2026250510478,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Accreting Compact Object Binaries in SRG/eROSITA eRASS1},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D733UCAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10478}
}
read the original abstract

Compact object binaries with accreting white dwarfs, neutron stars, or black holes are crucial for understanding accretion physics. In this study, we identify accreting compact object binary candidates in the SRG/eROSITA eRASS1 by combining their X-ray fluxes with Gaia photometry and ZTF time-domain observations. Candidates are selected based on their location in the "X-ray Main Sequence", a diagram incorporating their X-ray-to-optical flux ratios and optical colors, which suggest accretion-driven X-ray emission. We identify 22 candidates in eRASS1 catalog using a three-step selection process: (1) cross-matching to a unique Gaia optical counterpart within a 10" radius; (2) requiring X-ray-to-optical flux ratios exceeding the "X-ray Main Sequence"; and (3) detecting short-period variability in ZTF time-domain photometry. The resulting 22 candidates, including two previously confirmed compact object binaries, represent promising candidates for spectroscopic follow-up to confirm their accreting nature. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of combining X-ray-to-optical flux ratios and optical colors jointly with time-domain photometry to uncover accreting compact object binaries. The approach is scalable and adaptable to future multi-wavelength sky surveys, offering a promising path toward a more complete census of compact object binaries in the Galaxy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10478 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-panel illustration of the candidate J093757−171012, shown as a representative example of our selection procedure. The top-left panel (a) shows the DESI sky map with the X-ray position (blue circle) and optical counterpart (red circle) within a 10′′ radius, with no nearby bright sources (Section 2.1). The top-right panel (b) displays the ZTF phase-folded light curve, revealing ellipsoidal modulation and long-te… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of the X-ray-to-optical flux ratio (FX/Fopt) versus Gaia GBP − GRP color for eRASS1 sources matched with Gaia DR3 counterparts. The gray background shows all 127,083 X-ray sources, blue points represent 324 potential candidates identified based on flux ratios and peak Lomb-Scargle powers, and orange points highlight 22 candidates exhibiting clear short-period light curves. The black line indicates the e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Spectroscopic and photometric properties of five representative candidates (J0419, J0632, J0859, J0945, and J1023) with available optical spectra from the SDSS or LAMOST databases. Left panels: Optical spectra from SDSS or LAMOST, showing prominent Balmer and He I/He II emission lines, consistent with accreting compact object binaries. Right panels: Phase-folded ZTF r-band light curves. The phase-folded light curves… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Offset from the empirical cut in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multi-wavelength properties of the accreting compact object binary candidates, plotted against orbital period. Panel (a) displays the hardness ratio, and panel (b) shows the NUV-to-X-ray flux ratio (FNUV/FX) derived from the GALEX NUV magnitude and the ML FLUX 1 measur…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz, M. A., & Fragile, P. C. 2013, Living Reviews in Relativity, 16, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2013-1 Ag¨ ueros, M. A., Anderson, S. F., Covey, K. R., et al. 2009, ApJS, 181, 444, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/181/2/444

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  2. [2]

    2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    Ahumada, R., Allende Prieto, C., Almeida, A., et al. 2020, ApJS, 249, 3, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab929e 2020

  3. [3]

    M., Stairs, I

    Archibald, A. M., Stairs, I. H., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2009, Science, 324, 1411, doi: 10.1126/science.1172740

    doi:10.1126/science.1172740 2009

  4. [4]

    O., Kennea, J

    Bahramian, A., Heinke, C. O., Kennea, J. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2790, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3868

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3868 2021

  5. [5]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe 2019

  6. [6]

    Belloni, D., & Schreiber, M. R. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 129, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 98-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2023

  7. [7]

    J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al

    Boller, T., Freyberg, M. J., Tr¨ umper, J., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A103, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525648

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525648 2016

  8. [8]

    M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al

    Corral-Santana, J. M., Casares, J., Mu˜ noz-Darias, T., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 Accreting Compact Object Binaries in eRASS1 11

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527130 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    Cui, X.-Q., Zhao, Y.-H., Chu, Y.-Q., et al. 2012, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 1197, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/12/9/003

    2012 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Webbink, R

    Downes, R. A., Webbink, R. F., Shara, M. M., et al. 2001, PASP, 113, 764, doi: 10.1086/320802

    2001 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Broos, P., Gaffney, III, J

    Feigelson, E. D., Broos, P., Gaffney, III, J. A., et al. 2002, ApJ, 574, 258, doi: 10.1086/340936

    2002 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A

    Chaty, S. 2024, A&A, 684, A124, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347908 Gaia Collaboration, Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    J., Mori, K., Bauer, F

    Hailey, C. J., Mori, K., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 70, doi: 10.1038/nature25029

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    O., Grindlay, J

    Heinke, C. O., Grindlay, J. E., Lugger, P. M., et al. 2003, ApJ, 598, 501, doi: 10.1086/378885

    2003 doi

  7. [15]

    Helfand, D. J. 1980, PASP, 92, 691, doi: 10.1086/130731

    1980 doi

  8. [16]

    I., Jonker, P

    Hynes, R. I., Jonker, P. G., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2011, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 217, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #217, 144.24

    2011

  9. [17]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023329

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol

    Kolb, U. 1998, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 137, Wild Stars in the Old West, ed. S. Howell, E. Kuulkers, & C. Woodward, 190, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9708188

    1998 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lasota, J. P. 2000, A&A, 360, 575, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005073

    2000 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    Liu, A., Bulbul, E., Ghirardini, V., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141120

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Z., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E

    Liu, Q. Z., van Paradijs, J., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 2007, A&A, 469, 807, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20077303

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    Lomb, N. R. 1976, Ap&SS, 39, 447, doi: 10.1007/BF00648343

    1976 doi

  15. [23]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347165

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    1998, A&AS, 132, 341, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998299

    Motch, C., Guillout, P., Haberl, F., et al. 1998, A&AS, 132, 341, doi: 10.1051/aas:1998299

    1998 doi

  17. [25]

    F., G¨ ansicke, B

    Pala, A. F., G¨ ansicke, B. T., Breedt, E., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3799, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa764

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    A., & Yungelson, L

    Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 3, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-3

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    Predehl, P., Andritschke, R., Arefiev, V., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039313

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    A., & McClintock, J

    Remillard, R. A., & McClintock, J. E. 2006, ARA&A, 44, 49, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532

    2006 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Rodriguez, A. C. 2024, PASP, 136, 054201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ad357c

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al

    Rodriguez, A. C., El-Badry, K., Suleimanov, V., et al. 2025, PASP, 137, 014201, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ada185

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    2022, A&A, 661, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141612

    Saeedi, S., Liu, T., Knies, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141612

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, A&A, 661, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141631

    Salvato, M., Wolf, J., Dwelly, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141631

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    Scargle, J. D. 1981, ApJS, 45, 1, doi: 10.1086/190706

    1981 doi

  26. [34]

    A., & Dhillon, V

    Smith, D. A., & Dhillon, V. S. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 767, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1998.02065.x

    1998

  27. [35]

    H., Ritter, H., & Pfeffermann, E

    Verbunt, F., Bunk, W. H., Ritter, H., & Pfeffermann, E. 1997, A&A, 327, 602

    1997

  28. [36]

    A., Ferland, G

    Verner, D. A., Ferland, G. J., Korista, K. T., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1996, ApJ, 465, 487, doi: 10.1086/177435

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, T., et al. 1999, A&A, 349, 389, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9909315

    1999 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10794, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.10794

    Wang, X., & Takata, J. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.10794, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.10794

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol

    Warner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic variable stars, Vol. 28

    1995

  32. [40]

    2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, ApJ, 542, 914, doi: 10.1086/317016

    2000 doi

  33. [41]

    2022, ApJ, 933, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b6

    Zhang, Z.-X., Zheng, L.-L., Gu, W.-M., et al. 2022, ApJ, 933, 193, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac75b6

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.